Establishing Appealability Boundaries: Final Decision Requirement for Remand Denials, Partial Dismissals, and Arbitration Stays

Introduction

Profit v. Coleman, decided April 15, 2025 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, addresses a threshold question in federal practice: when may an interlocutory order be appealed? The underlying dispute arose after Tamika Profit’s minor son, J.Q., was shot and killed at a party in a house rented through Airbnb by another minor. Profit sued Airbnb, the property owners (Germanique Coleman and Brandon Harry), and their insurer in Louisiana state court, alleging wrongful‐death and survival claims. Airbnb removed the litigation to federal court on diversity grounds, and the district court (via a magistrate judge) denied remand, dismissed the survival action, and compelled arbitration of the remaining wrongful‐death claim—staying the case pending arbitration. Profit attempted to appeal each of these orders. In a per curiam opinion, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, reaffirming that (1) orders denying remand or dismissing fewer than all claims require Rule 54(b) certification to be appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and (2) an order compelling arbitration but staying the underlying claims is interlocutory and non‐appealable under the Federal Arbitration Act.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit began by emphasizing its limited jurisdiction. It held:

1. Denial of a remand motion coupled with dismissal of improperly joined defendants is not appealable as a “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 unless the district court certifies the order as final under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Profit did not seek or obtain such certification, and the order contained no express “final” language or “no just reason for delay” finding.
2. Dismissal of the survival claim likewise disposed of fewer than all claims and was not certified under Rule 54(b), rendering it non‐appealable.
3. The order compelling arbitration of the wrongful‐death claim, accompanied by a stay rather than a dismissal, is interlocutory and thus not appealable under Section 16 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Only a final arbitration order—i.e., one that dismisses rather than stays the proceeding—would be appealable.

Because none of the challenged orders qualified as appealable final decisions, the court dismissed the appeal in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Fifth Circuit’s reasoning rests on two doctrinal pillars: finality in civil appeals and finality in arbitration appeals.

• Briargrove Shopping Ctr. Joint Venture v. Pilgrim Enters., Inc. (170 F.3d 536) – Defines a “final decision” under § 1291 as one that “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” It also requires unmistakable Rule 54(b) certification for partial final judgments.
• Ortiz v. United States (585 U.S. 427) – Reinforces the limited nature of federal appellate jurisdiction and the need for strict adherence to appellate‐jurisdiction statutes.
• PCI Transp., Inc. v. Fort Worth & W. R. Co. (418 F.3d 535) and D & J Invs. of Cenla, L.L.C. v. Baker Hughes a G E Co. (52 F.4th 187) – Clarify that remand‐denial orders are unappealable unless coupled with a Rule 12(b)(6)‐type dismissal and Rule 54(b) certification.
• Crostley v. Lamar Cnty. (717 F.3d 410) – Holds that any dismissal disposing of fewer than all claims must be certified under Rule 54(b) to become appealable.
• Green Tree Financial Corp.–Ala. v. Randolph (531 U.S. 79) – Establishes that only a “final decision with respect to arbitration”—one that compels arbitration and dismisses the district‐court action—is appealable under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3), whereas stays pending arbitration are non‐appealable per § 16(b).
• Griggs v. S.G.E. Mgmt., L.L.C. (905 F.3d 835) and Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela (587 U.S. 176) – Confirm that stays of proceedings pending arbitration cannot be appealed, and that the relevant inquiry is whether the district court dismissed (final) or stayed (interlocutory) the case.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds in two parallel tracks:

1. Civil Appealability Under § 1291 and Rule 54(b)
   The court reaffirmed that § 1291 grants jurisdiction only over “final decisions,” and a partial disposition must be certified under Rule 54(b). The magistrate judge’s orders denying remand and dismissing the survival claim lacked any express final‐judgment language, any reference to Rule 54(b), or a finding of “no just reason for delay.” Without those unmistakable signs of finality, the orders remained interlocutory and thus unappealable.
2. Arbitration Appealability Under the FAA
   Turning to the FAA, the opinion stressed that § 16(a)(3) permits an appeal only from a “final decision with respect to arbitration,” which the Supreme Court interprets as an order compelling arbitration and dismissing the case. Here, the court stayed the litigation rather than dismissing it, so the order fell within § 16(b)’s bar on interlocutory appeals.

Impact

Profit v. Coleman reinforces litigants’ need to manage appealability proactively:

• Rule 54(b) Certification: Plaintiffs and defendants seeking immediate appellate review of partial dispositions must request—and obtain—a Rule 54(b) certification that expressly declares the order final and states there is no just reason for delay.
• Remand Strategy: Parties removing or opposing removal should understand that denial of remand is not automatically appealable. They may combine a remand denial with Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals and seek 54(b) certification to lock in an appeal.
• Arbitration Tournament: Lawyers compelling arbitration must decide whether to seek a stay or a dismissal. Only a dismissal yields an appealable order; stays remain in the district court, insulating arbitration rulings from immediate appellate review.

Jurisdictional gatekeeping thus remains a key tactical consideration in federal litigation and arbitration disputes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Final Decision (28 U.S.C. § 1291): An order that ends litigation on the merits so that nothing remains but execution of the judgment.
• Rule 54(b) Certification: A district court can make a partial decision final by stating in writing that it disposes of one or more—but not all—claims and that there is no just reason to delay appellate review.
• Interlocutory Order: Any ruling that does not end the litigation or that reserves issues for later is interlocutory and generally not appealable.
• FAA § 16(a) vs. § 16(b): Section 16(a)(3) allows appeals from “final decisions with respect to arbitration” (i.e., arbitration orders plus dismissals). Section 16(b) bars appeals from interlocutory orders, including stays pending arbitration.

Conclusion

Profit v. Coleman crystallizes the imperative that appellate jurisdiction in federal courts hinges on “finality.” Parties cannot circumvent § 1291 or the FAA’s appeal‐bar by labeling rulings “final” in correspondence; they must seek express certification or provoke a dismissal. The decision thus provides a clear roadmap for practitioners: when seeking to accelerate appellate review of remand denials, partial dismissals, or arbitration orders, always secure the requisite formalities—Rule 54(b) for civil appeals and a dismissal rather than stay for arbitration appeals. Absent those steps, interlocutory orders remain beyond the reach of the appellate courts.